Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By Darrian13 08/09/2006 11:12 PM
@Blackmoor, I think you are underestimating the comp hits on your WB army. You failed to take into account your number of summoned units and the number of power weapons in your list (bloodletters?).

While it is true that you beat me with that list, to be fair, it was my first try with Space Marines. I know I am a fast learner, but come on. BTW, I did happen to win the RTT 2 days later with that list and you played your WB's list there, didn't you?

Darrian

I ran it through the comp system and I was hit by:

<PRE>What percentage of your troop selections are at maximum size?</PRE><PRE>Less than 25% 0 </PRE><PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE><PRE>For any model armed with power weapons (or considered to be)</PRE><PRE>multiple the strength of the model times the number of attacks it has. </PRE><PRE>Add these numbers together for all such models and consult the chart below. </PRE><PRE>(Include bonus attacks from extra hand weapons but not from charging)</PRE><PRE>91 or more 0</PRE></PRE><PRE>(Bloodletters, Chaos LT+Dark Blade, 1 Powerfist and 2 Oblits)</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE><PRE>Of the total number of units in your army, what percentage can infiltrate? (Include Deep striking units, summoned units, Infiltrators and drop pod units) </PRE><PRE>21 to 35% 2</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>So that army was -7 in comp. 43 points is very good with that competative list.</PRE><PRE>I could use that list and do well at most RTTs.</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>And yes, you did win the RTT I played those Word Bearers at. We both went 2-0-1. </PRE><PRE>Too bad you got your tie early so I could have seen if </PRE><PRE>I still could have beaten you at the top table.</PRE> </PRE> </PRE>

The Troops being at max size should be only for units that have a max troop size of 10.  The fact that my footslogging Ork force that doesn't have any troops at max size (20 boyz in Ork mobs, 20 or so Grots in a mob) and gets penalized for that is rediculous.

You can't make this kind of comp setup for a tournament without having tons of qualifiers because of the diversity of armies - which just makes it even more complex.

And as stated there are many armies that can get excellent comp scores and still be incredibly effective or min/maxed or whatever you want to call it.

Comp sucks. Instead of punishing people for taking stuff, why not design senarios that make them work for their wins. The multiple objective based senarios at adepticon are a great example of this. Bonus points and penalties that tie in with senarios could also be used (ie -2 points if you lose 2 or more elite units or -2 if you lose all your troops).

What is so sad about this "comp" thing for me, is that the event itself is awesome. The coordinaters put so much effort and time in, it definitely shows. The venue is perfect, large enough for 64 players without much cramping. And the players are great, except for the cheater. The store that sponsors the event, Great Escape is also very nice.
But sadly, this comp crap is such a deterrant for me that I will not go this year.

Darrian

I will not be able to attend this year as I no longer live in CA. ^____^;

Moopy, depending on where you moved to, that may not be an excuse. I drove up from Los Angeles last year, that was a hell of a drive, so you better have moved far.

Darrian

Washington State now, and driving from CA to WA in one day was also a hell of a drive. @_@

I don't understand why people are penalized for bringing power weapons, but not for bringing power armor. It doesn't make any sense. If people weren't fielding power armor, you wouldn't need to bring power weapons to get passed the power armor! It's assbackwards.

Maybe rather than penalizing people for not bringing max sized units, they should penalize people for bringing troop units with less than 20 models in them. That would work better, it's more fair.

I agree also, that it's dumb to ding Fearless units but not ATSKNF. If you're going to ding one ding both, they both break the Ld. rules.

Also, there should be a penality for bringing too many models with both a S and T of 4 or more. That's just abusive and broken!

To answer the original Q, I think this comp is terrible and I would not play in any tourni that uses it. I agree with mauleed.

-Eli

I am getting the feeling that this event "Contest of Champions" will not get the Dakka Dakka seal of approval.

I also think that the fact that there is a comp system at "Contest of Champions" will severly lower the prestige of winning the event. I mean, how can you brag about being the champion of a comp event? That is kinda like being the winner of a 6' and under basketball league. I guess a guy who is the best player in such a league is a pretty good player, but I doubt he gets taken too seriously.

Darrian

This comp system just enforces the old standby comp scoring-

(speaking from a Marine player's point of view) Bad comp is

1) Anything that can do something that I can't do and/or
2) Anything that kills Marines really well.

It also goes with the idea that if an army is effective, then it is an army with bad comp.

@Hokkaido. You mentioned Kublacon in one of your earlier posts stating that "the scoring was fubar and the person who was awarded best overall did not actually win it." I was not there, but I am curious, can you elaborate? What happened?

Darrian

Darrian13 -- The contest of champions is for a boxed army at the end of the year. Nobody brags about anything, thats just the name of it. And nothing gets the Dakka Dakka seal of approval; we deal in negatives here. For people presumptuous enough to write an FAQ, where is the inspiration to compose a fair and equitable comp list (we're working under the assumption that such a thing exists). I understand the Mauleed-iots (new word, thx) dont want one and there are plenty of 'mere mortal' gamers who wont play without one. Im somewhere in the middle tho...I catch flak in this thread for the comp system because I disagree that it completely sucks, but im not a comp nazi and I actually prefer RT comp. A simple, concise tip of the cap to fair gaming. How about a series of tournaments across the US that all use a unified scoring system, resulting in national rankings and an invite-only tournament at the end of the year / season that would truly be a Grand Tournament? Id be all for that. Everybody needs to hop inside yakface's big brain and come up with something that works.

The Kublacon mess arose when one of the GW-provided judges added the scores wrong. Some people only got credit for 4 games instead of 5, and it wasnt caught until a few days after the tournament. Its too bad too, the main organizer works his butt off to pull everything together on his own, GW steps in and dangles some official recognition, and then screws it up. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only judges who cant count.

I catch flak in this thread for the comp system because I disagree that it completely sucks, but im not a comp nazi and I actually prefer RT comp. A simple, concise tip of the cap to fair gaming

Except its not. An ork player is going to get hammered by this comp system, while at the same time a WH player can build a killer army with a 40+ comp score.

It's not fair. That is its main problem.

GTs used some of these same elements at one time or another, and they moved away from them for all the reasons mentioned. Ultimately, different armies get their strength in different ways and in different parts of the org chart.

I've defended the purpose of comp at GTs many times here in the past, mainly from the standpoint of being a business decision by GW to make their events (at least seem) friendlier. But I've come to the conclusion that comp is mostly a pointless exercise. If they have a rigid, quantitative system, it'll reward some armies over others and it becomes another exercise in min/maxing. If they have a loose quantitative system, everyone probably ends up scoring near max scores, making the whole exercise almost pointless. If they have a player-judged system, it'll be abused by those who care too much and tank scores, and those who care too little and pass out max scores to everyone. If they have a judge-based system (which is how the early U.S. GTs operated), people will complain that armies were unevenly judged and that the judging isn't transparent.

No matter how you try to put a comp system in, there are going to be serious flaws and people are going to be unhappy. And unhappy players is what the thing is trying to prevent in the first place.

Here's an idea for comp: "codex armies only". No chapter approved, no eye of terror no White Dwarf armies. Everyone plays with the armies from the codexes, knows everyone else will be playing armies from the codexes, and will all be able to choose from the same armies. Sure some codexes are out of balance, but everyone has access to everything on the menu from the shelf of a store. No other restrictions.

Here's an idea for comp: "codex armies only". No chapter approved...

My 200+ painstakingly converted and painted Kroot thank you. Care to 'splain why a Codex army is more acceptable than a non-codex army? You have a suggestion, now explain your reasoning.

To me in a tournament setting every one should bring the best they can.  F**K comp.  When is the last time the US army said oh we have this great tank with all these great guns, but we shouldn't use it because our enemy can't destroy it easily.  Everyone should take the strongest list they can make.  It is about who is the best, so everyone should bring their best and play for the win not a comp score.  That is not to say that Sportsmen ship should not be counted because I don't care how comps friendly your list is; if you?re a d*ck to play against no one will have fun.

I understand comp is there to keep things fair and balanced but i have never seen a comp system that is fair to all armies.  The only way to do it is to have a different comp rubric for every codex.  Even then you are not garneted to have anything that is fair to all army builds.

Posted By Furious 08/11/2006 8:57 AM

Here's an idea for comp: "codex armies only". No chapter approved...

My 200+ painstakingly converted and painted Kroot thank you. Care to 'splain why a Codex army is more acceptable than a non-codex army? You have a suggestion, now explain your reasoning.

Codexes are supposed to be balanced for play. White Dwarf/Eye of Terror/Chapter approved armies are for fun armies that aren't necessarily balanced for play, kinda like Forgeworld. Some tournaments are not allowing Lost and the Damned armies and there is no Genestealer Cult armies anymore even though someone may have eleventy billion models painted up, they get denied to play in a tournament too. There's no reason to act all defensive because you have a custom non-codex army.

Good for you on making the army, you bring a lot to the game, your list just doesn't fit the requirements for my idea of tournament play.

EOT was not added in the UK (Only the UK) GT under the proviso that its no longer in print, not that the list was a "fun" list or untested.


Convince me the BA list is balanced and I'll buy you a beer. And not that cheap US stuff, real beer.

Posted By jfrazell 08/11/2006 12:23 PM

Convince me the BA list is balanced and I'll buy you a beer. And not that cheap US stuff, real beer.

 

I have always found the BA list under 3rd edition quite balanced both to play with and against (I used to play BA and Salamanders).

But speaking of beer, as a brit living in the US finding decent beer is always a struggle especially if you want beer that doesn't leave an after taste for the rest of the evening (as with Miller, Bud et al that leave no taste at all even when in your mouth!!). Luckily QFC is the greatest savoir - Young's WaggleDance and SLA, Bellhaven Scotch Ale etc and a little reminder of home is just sat in my fridge.

Back O/T - I am a "story" player and painter more than a hard core gamer. If I don't get to play for a month or two no biggie. However, for a tournement it should be no holds bard to the victory the spoils etc. Death, destruction and total crushing of your opponent is the key - comp and sportsmanship have no bearing (though loss of points for being a dork should happen). People should wince at the carnage.

It is like chess. A friendly afternoon game with beer and friends and you allow you opponent a "take back" or warn him/ her of an error. In a championship match you pull your best moves and crush you opponent and take advantage of every error and try and "psyche" him out. The two events are total unrelated and should not even be compared.

p.s I hate agreeing with Ed.

Codexes are supposed to be balanced for play. White Dwarf/Eye of Terror/Chapter approved armies are for fun armies that aren't necessarily balanced for play, kinda like Forgeworld.

Edit: I've thought out my arguement a little better...

I don't agree with your interpretation of "balanced."  Dismissing an army list based on where it was printed is too general.  By this definition, the Dark Elder (in addition to the Wych Cult) would be ineligble because they have had their changes printed in White Dwarf and Chapter Approve.

One could argue armies printed in the categories you mentioned are under-developed and therefore unbalanced.  However, the Kroot Merc Army had gone through no fewer than three versions and the Feral Orks have been changed at least twice.  These two armies have seen more refinement and had more player-driven changes than most Codex armies.  I feel they are among the most developed list out there, and argueably more balanced than Codex armies in existance.

In regards to the Great Escape Games comp system, I feel is is unfair solely for the fact it is impossible for certain armies to _ever_ receive a perfect comp score.  The Kroot Merc will never receive a 50, simply because compulsory choices, HQ and Troops, infiltrate as a core ability.  Armored Company takes a double ding from having more Vehicles and Armor than non-vehicle/armor selections.  I know there are other armies that fall into this category and I think it would be more productive to examine this issue and use it to promt change in the existing comp system.

Posted By jfrazell 08/11/2006 12:23 PM
EOT was not added in the UK (Only the UK) GT under the proviso that its no longer in print, not that the list was a "fun" list or untested.


Convince me the BA list is balanced and I'll buy you a beer. And not that cheap US stuff, real beer.

Note that I wrote:

Sure some codexes are out of balance, but everyone has access to everything on the menu from the shelf of a store.

I'm fully aware that the codexes aren't perfectly balanced, and some are out of whack. Also note that I am saying that it is all available on the shelf of a store. This applies to any chapter approved army, not everyone has access to those lists. It is my opinion and has been stated as my opinion that tournaments should be restricted to codex armies because they are available to anyone, are supposedly balanced according to GW and would 'even' up the playing field by being widely available. How many people attributed the feral ork wins at tournaments to their obscurity in addition to the skill of the person playing it? Quite a few people if I remember correctly. I'm all for specialized lists in friendly play however.

 

Posted By Furious 08/11/2006 2:25 PM

Codexes are supposed to be balanced for play. White Dwarf/Eye of Terror/Chapter approved armies are for fun armies that aren't necessarily balanced for play, kinda like Forgeworld.

Still not buying it. My Chapter Approved army has seen more tweaks and adjustments than some Codex armies out there. The Kroot Merc rules have gone through at least 3 changes and Feral Orks at least two. And what about Dark Eldar? Their most recent changes were featured in a Chapter Approved article.

Try again.

"aren't necessarily balanced" doesn't mean they are all imbalanced, I am generalizing for the benefit of the other players. You don't have to agree with me and I am admitting I am generalizing, but hey, it was stated as my opinion to start with.

It is my opinion and has been stated as my opinion that tournaments should be restricted to codex armies because they are available to anyone, are supposedly balanced according to GW and would 'even' up the playing field by being widely available. How many people attributed the feral ork wins at tournaments to their obscurity in addition to the skill of the person playing it?

Since it is a question of availability, I'd like to point out both the Feral Ork list and the KMA list are available for download. I believe this makes them "more available" and easily accessable than the Codicies because they are free (one could argue they are only available to those with computers, and to those nay sayers, I recommend going to the nearest Public Library which, ironically, will most likely not have any codicies). I feel it is a players responsibility to bring one's Codex to any tournament in case any questions arise. Personally, I bring multiple copies of my "Codex" for reference and for my opponents to keep. I've been making the KMA rules "available" and "accessable" for the last three years of competitive play.

I don't believe your arguement is at all valid. Players are perfectly able to research other materials and/or ask questions of their opponents. To fail to do so and blame a loss on "unavailable" or "obscure" lists is a result of their failure to investigate potential opponents. Especially for GT's where Feral Orks were on the list of approved armies.

Now if someone managed to win a GT with a Squat army, perhaps then I would credit that to winning with an obscure army.

Regardless, I would like to see if anyone has thought of other armies that could never receive a 50 on the GEG comp scores...

Okay, there's been a lot of "I like comp" vs "I hate comp" arguments but no real constructive critisism toward coming up with a more realistic system that people can (more than less) agree is fair.  What follows is just a basic start for anyone with the time, patience, or reason to come up with such a system.  I'm sure there are enough people interested in seeing such a work that it wouldn't take long as a community effort...

The basic idea seems to be that a fair comp system needs to take into account each individual race's individual abuses that are often seen as 'crossing the line'.  This is not a discussion on whether or not tournament play should or should not even have a comp system.  That is a matter for the tournament organizers to hash out between themselves, I'm sure they see/hear the same crap day in and day out that we've all seen a million times on this subject already.

This is attacking the problem from a different angle, it is an attempt to find a reasonable solution that makes the majority of players who are in the middle of the spectrum happy.

Notice that these guidelines would sport a lower average comp score than what has been discussed in this thread.  I think that an army's composition score should only come into play in those tournaments where you see a few points difference between certain players.  I also think the scores should really mean something, so that a player with an exceptionally high score is truly handicapping himself by taking an underpowered list on purpose.  Beyond that, it should simply be seen as another piece of the puzzle for tweaking out one's list - balancing the scale between effectiveness and guaranteed comp points.  Nobody should really want to play a perfect comp score list under this kind of system.

So, a simple start would look like this -

Race independent Guideline (max 6 points)

<PRE><?     Total number of squads that are at maximum size* = comp points gained.</PRE><PRE>   For this calculation, use the following guidelines:</PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in left 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt">·         Any unit with 20 models is added if its normal maximum size is over 20 models.</PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in left 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt">·         Any unit with 15 models is added if the normal maximum size is between 15 and 20 models.</PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in left 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt">·         No unit with a maximum size of less than 5 models ever counts for this bonus   </PRE><PRE> Race specific Guidelines</PRE>

  Space Marines (15 points maximum)

Total number of drop pods:

0    3

1-2  2

3-4  1

5+   0

 

Total number of units with rending weapons:

0    5

1    4

2    3

3    2

4    1

5+   0

 

Total number of Librarians:

0    2

1    1

2    0

 

Total number of units with an upgraded character (Vet Sgt or equivallent, Terminator Sgt does not count):

0    5   

1    4

2    3

3    2

4    1

5+   0

 

 

Tyranids (20 point maximum)

Total number of monsterous creatures:

0    10

1    9

2    8

3    7

4    6

5    5

6    4

7    3

8    2

 

Total number of non-Warrior rending units:

0    10

1    9

2    8

3    7

4    6

5    5

6    4

7    3

8+   2

 

 

Necrons (16 point maximum)

Total number of Monoliths:

0    6

1    4

2    2

3    0

 

List has no C-Tan: +2

 

Total number of Res Orbs:

0    6

1    3

2    0

 

List has no Veil of Darkness: +2

 

 

 

But speaking of beer, as a brit living in the US finding decent beer is always a struggle especially if you want beer that doesn't leave an after taste for the rest of the evening (as with Miller, Bud et al that leave no taste at all even when in your mouth!!). Luckily QFC is the greatest savoir - Young's WaggleDance and SLA, Bellhaven Scotch Ale etc and a little reminder of home is just sat in my fridge.

Beer Advocate

Except its not. An ork player is going to get hammered by this comp system, while at the same time a WH player can build a killer army with a 40+ comp score.

It's not fair. That is its main problem.

Did I ever say anywhere that it was fair? No. I said I prefer RT comp, which is minimal even for those who hate comp altogether. RT comp is simple and covers the basics. You misread my post.

Posted By Furious 08/11/2006 5:03 PM

It is my opinion and has been stated as my opinion that tournaments should be restricted to codex armies because they are available to anyone, are supposedly balanced according to GW and would 'even' up the playing field by being widely available. How many people attributed the feral ork wins at tournaments to their obscurity in addition to the skill of the person playing it?

Since it is a question of availability, I'd like to point out both the Feral Ork list and the KMA list are available for download. I believe this makes them "more available" and easily accessable than the Codicies because they are free (one could argue they are only available to those with computers, and to those nay sayers, I recommend going to the nearest Public Library which, ironically, will most likely not have any codicies). I feel it is a players responsibility to bring one's Codex to any tournament in case any questions arise. Personally, I bring multiple copies of my "Codex" for reference and for my opponents to keep. I've been making the KMA rules "available" and "accessable" for the last three years of competitive play.

I don't believe your arguement is at all valid.

The nice thing about discussions is that both sides are not required to agree, just to discuss. My proposed codex only requirement fits what I think is adequate to keep things fair. You can prove that your army is codex worthy, available to the homeless and I still won't be convinved because I am basing my opinion on:

Codex armies can be checked off the shelf of a well stocked gaming store. They might be able to provide downloads, but they will likely have codexes. Friends will have codexes. Anyone can buy a codex, anyone with a codex can tell what edition it is, wether it is up to date fairly easily and is something that opponents can thumb through with friends and have an idea of what can be brought. That's what I see for tournament play. If you don't like it, don't play it, each tournament has it's own set of rules and that is the kind of tournament I would like to play at.

I begin to think that the fairest 'comp' system is simply a set of three lists for every army that are valid in the tournament. You pick one, you bring it, you get full comp. You bring anything else and you're disqualified.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that the game is perfectly fair as it is - you could just as easily have brought the army that you're calling cheesy. I imagine that the main incentive for comp scoring is not to make the game more fair, as it's perfectly fair, but rather to make the game different. Currently, it's pretty obvious that certain armies are much more capable of winning a tournament than are others. While fair, that's not necessarily fun for everyone - some people undoubtedly want a tournament where codex Orks have a chance. Any comp system is perfectly fair (for the same reasons that no comp is perfectly fair), but the ideal system balances all the codices against each other. Since that's next to impossible, why not simply pick three lists from every codex that have a 50/50 chance of beating every other selected list and demanding that players bring one of them? You're not forcing the player to pick things any more than most comp systems force Armored Company or Iron Warriors players, and you can offer a decent selection of army types.

If you want to make composition rules then at least don't do it in a general way but do it unit by unit from every army. The player and judge at the tournament do not evaluate composition because this is already include in the way that people select their army.

A good way to do it would be like they did in Confrontation with the Dragon rouge. They do not only add tournament rules over the basic rules but also add more detail to some general rules and specific unit rules and detail every limitation to maintain balance. They also discuss every limitation they add on forum. The format is good enough that every tournament I saw use those rules unlike 40k tournament where I am always stuck with weird general rules that break balance for some army

Rules that add point and deduct point on the tournament result should be balance with the effect they produce. If there is 100 battle point in the tournament an army with a limitation and some composition bonus point should end up with the same amount of point than the same army would have earn without those limitation. A factor that give composition point but does not make the army better should not be part of the composition point. There is no point giving bonus point to somebody that use a lot of troops if his army is more efficient that way. The different composition system that I saw in 40k are always of that type and break balance.